The one overiding thought I have about this subject, with which I’ve lived and watched, enjoyed and suffered for more than twenty years, is that generalization is a very difficult undertaking, and I try to avoid it. The academic side of me leads me to think that one can construct a particular model or system which will resolve a substantial portion of the problem. This is a noble undertaking, and you have heard many ideas of that sort presented today.
However, the practitioner side of me makes me very leery of that process – particularly so when modelling involves sixth amendment questions of delivery of legal services. Rather than comment on all of the provocative issues presented today, I think it best to single out those which are most intellectually meaningful to me. At the same time, I would like to give you some appreciation of my feelings about these issues, as well as an indication of where I think politicians, judges, and the criminal bar are headed.
Molly Lauterback This is the fourth in a series of interviews with attorneys who are pursuing social change through their work. This conversation took place between Molly Lauterback, an editor and board member of the N.Y.U. Review of Law &
Looks at public defense leadership in three dimensions from very specific and local to broad and global.
Zealous advocacy is not enough to combat the effects after a criminal sentence is served, and a holistic approach is necessary
The ultimate catalyst for change, however, should be a statewide public defense commission comprised of attorneys and laypersons who have demonstrated an interest in public defense services, as well as representatives of impoverished and low-income communities throughout New York State.
On its 25th anniversary, teachers of the NYU School of Law Family Defense Clinic look back at the development of an innovative practice model that helped shape the burgeoning family defense movement. As the first law school clinic of its